Road Safety in South Yorkshire: A Better Way “Worst First”

1. Road Safety in South Yorkshire: A Better Way “Worst First”

2. Problem Identification • Over the past 5 years targets have been met for slights and child KSIs but not for overall KSIs • Resulted in criticism and investigation by the DfT and contributed to a poorer score • A move to an evidence based approach is needed focusing on how performance can be improved in terms of reducing overall KSIs, irrespective of the quantum of resources in order to meet targets and satisfy DfT • At the same time still need to achieve other road safety objectives

3. Prioritisation – Red Amber Green Rating of ‘A’ Roads • In 2005 47% of fatal and 39% of KSI collisions in South Yorkshire took place on ‘A’ roads, yet these comprise just 11.5% of the network • Evidence suggests it is prudent to concentrate efforts on reducing KSI collisions on ‘A’ roads, in the first instance • Analysis of KSI collisions on ‘A’ roads undertaken to produce a ‘red’, ‘amber’ or ‘green’ rating for each section of ‘A’ road depending on the KSI collision rate when compared to the ‘average’ for ‘A’ roads (see next slide) • From this 84 sections of road in South Yorkshire have been given a red rating as a result of their greater incidence of KSI collisions than the county average for ‘A’ roads, i.e. WORST FIRST

4. Red Routes in South Yorkshire RED = Routes above the County average with no casualty reduction works planned AMBER= Routes that have had / will have works before year 3 of LTP2 GREEN = Routes below County average

5. Interventions • On sections of road identified as worst first interventions will depend on a detailed evaluation of the causes of collisions • Designed to influence road user behaviour and attitude and reduce the risk of road user error • Interventions will be a mix of the 3 E’s – Education, Enforcement, Engineering • Problems will be more treatable by using a combination of these options which rarely happens currently • Also, Safety Camera Partnership more closely integrated with these road safety activities

6. Costs Annual LTP road safety allocation is likely to be £3.5 million It is estimated that around £1 million per year will be required to treat the sections of ‘A’ road given a red rating Allocated on the basis of need, i.e., worst red routes first irrespective of district (the following slide shows graphically that the priorities in each district will not be the same as for SY as a whole) Currently, and coincidentally, around £1 million is spent in SY each year on treating KSIs as part of each districts Local Safety Scheme programme Remaining £2.5 million to be used for other casualty reduction initiatives and danger reduction schemes that will complement work being undertaken using Neighbourhood Renewal Funding in pursuance of other targets This could be distributed on the basis of the population of the districts, although the principle of ‘worst first’ could also be applied to this allocation From 2007/08 management of the Safety Camera Partnership devolves to the LTP Additional to the £3.5 million, from 2007/08 £2.55 million per annum from DfT earmarked to run the SCP

7. District and SY Priorities (Illustrative only)

8. Trends and Targets

9. Trends and Targets

10. Trends and Targets

11. Target • Target in LTP2 is to reduce KSI casualties in SY from 727 to 582 by 2010, a reduction of 145 • It is estimated that focussing on ‘worst first’ in SY by treating red routes will reduce KSI casualties by 120 • An average of 28 sections of road need to be treated in each of years 3, 4 and 5 of LTP2 to achieve this reduction (3 year period) • On completion, a ‘rebaselining’ exercise is needed, to recalculate the average and the next set of red/amber/green routes to be treated on a worst first basis (this links well with road safety best practice of studying ‘effect’ over at least a 3 year period)

12. Links • Need to take account of other initiatives planned for ‘red routes’ eg accessibility, QBCs • Will enable road safety schemes to be co-ordinated with and to complement maintenance schemes, bus infrastructure improvements, urban regeneration, etc • Need to ensure that the community driven agenda is not diluted. Retaining significant funding for local determination means that danger reduction schemes will address ‘Quality of Life’ and Community Planning agendas and complement work being undertaken using Neighbourhood Renewal Funding • Danger reduction schemes and other casualty reduction initiatives using NRF and the £2.5 million per annum which will remain to be split pro rata population

13. Implications of Worst First Allocation of some funding on basis of need, ie worst first, will lead to one or more of the districts receiving more funding than at present and hence others receiving less Will the districts that receive increased funding have the resources to deliver their part of the programme both in terms of qualified staff and getting the work done on the ground? Could this lead to staff and the construction workforce from one district working in another area? Will this be acceptable/permitted/lawful?

14. Red Routes in South Yorkshire RED = Routes above the County average with no casualty reduction works planned AMBER= Routes that have had / will have works before year 3 of LTP2 GREEN = Routes below County average